lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1919) Analysis back compat break
Date Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:18:57 GMT


Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1919:

edit: collision w/ robert.
Still wonder if it's safe to get rid of that second clone()... the combinations are mind-bending.


yonik, hmm i think the second clone() is a hint there remains another problem
if you look at my patch, it only fixes the case where you have a tokenstream supporting incrementToken(),
and you use both next() and next(Token) apis.

what if the tokenstream only supports next(reusableTS) ?
if you call next(token) then next(), i think in that case you will have the same problem.
this still won't introduce any extra cloning, just fix the logic so it doesnt overwrite the
tokenWrapper, and returns a "full private copy" like the javadocs say.

 (i'll add another test and upload a new patch)

> Analysis back compat break
> --------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-1919
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Yonik Seeley
>             Fix For: 2.9
>         Attachments: LUCENE-1919.patch, LUCENE-1919.patch, LUCENE-1919.patch
> Old and new style token streams don't mix well.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message